Comments on: Pluto Loses the Status as A Planet http://izzatruslan.com/2008/09/14/pluto-loses-the-status-as-a-planet/ life experiment observation | blogging is all about sharing Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: izzAt http://izzatruslan.com/2008/09/14/pluto-loses-the-status-as-a-planet/comment-page-1/#comment-976 izzAt Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:16:29 +0000 http://izzatruslan.com/?p=355#comment-976 @Laurel Kornfeld, thanks laurel for your impressive explaination and information regarding the news. i really appreciate that. :) @Laurel Kornfeld, thanks laurel for your impressive explaination and information regarding the news. i really appreciate that. :)

]]> By: Laurel Kornfeld http://izzatruslan.com/2008/09/14/pluto-loses-the-status-as-a-planet/comment-page-1/#comment-971 Laurel Kornfeld Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:37:24 +0000 http://izzatruslan.com/?p=355#comment-971 Not so fast! Only 424 members of the IAU (not 2,500), which constitute about four percent of the organization, voted in favor of the new definition that excludes Pluto. Most who voted are not planetary scientists while conversely, most planetary scientists are not IAU members. The new planet definition was immediately rejected by 300 professional astronomers led by one of the leading Pluto experts in the world, Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto. Stern accurately described the new planet definition as "sloppy science that would never pass peer review." It is sloppy and makes no sense because it states that dwarf planets are not planets at all. Also, it defines objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. Nobody should change any textbooks yet, as this definition is not likely to stand. A better choice, advocated by many planetary scientists, is to keep the term planet as broad as possible to include any object in hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning it has enough self gravity to pull itself into a round shape, that orbits a star. Objects in hydrostatic equilibrium, such as Pluto, Ceres, Eris, and MakeMake, have geophysical processes just like the bigger planets and unlike the shapeless, geologically inert asteroids. We can then distinguish types of planets by use of subcategories such as terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, dwarf planets, super Earths, hot Jupiters, etc., with more new categories likely to come as new discoveries are made. Objects that do not dominate their orbits would fall into the dwarf planet category but would still be considered a subclass of planets. That means we now have 13,not 8 planets in our solar system, with more likely to come. This is a far better classification scheme that recognizes the incredible diversity among planets both in this solar system and in others. Laurel Kornfelds last blog post..<a href="http://laurele.livejournal.com/5195.html" rel="nofollow">Two Years Later: Not Gone, Not Forgotten</a> Not so fast! Only 424 members of the IAU (not 2,500), which constitute about four percent of the organization, voted in favor of the new definition that excludes Pluto. Most who voted are not planetary scientists while conversely, most planetary scientists are not IAU members. The new planet definition was immediately rejected by 300 professional astronomers led by one of the leading Pluto experts in the world, Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. Stern accurately described the new planet definition as “sloppy science that would never pass peer review.” It is sloppy and makes no sense because it states that dwarf planets are not planets at all. Also, it defines objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. Nobody should change any textbooks yet, as this definition is not likely to stand. A better choice, advocated by many planetary scientists, is to keep the term planet as broad as possible to include any object in hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning it has enough self gravity to pull itself into a round shape, that orbits a star. Objects in hydrostatic equilibrium, such as Pluto, Ceres, Eris, and MakeMake, have geophysical processes just like the bigger planets and unlike the shapeless, geologically inert asteroids. We can then distinguish types of planets by use of subcategories such as terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, dwarf planets, super Earths, hot Jupiters, etc., with more new categories likely to come as new discoveries are made. Objects that do not dominate their orbits would fall into the dwarf planet category but would still be considered a subclass of planets. That means we now have 13,not 8 planets in our solar system, with more likely to come. This is a far better classification scheme that recognizes the incredible diversity among planets both in this solar system and in others.

Laurel Kornfelds last blog post..Two Years Later: Not Gone, Not Forgotten

]]> By: izzAt http://izzatruslan.com/2008/09/14/pluto-loses-the-status-as-a-planet/comment-page-1/#comment-966 izzAt Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:44:47 +0000 http://izzatruslan.com/?p=355#comment-966 @johnny ong, ya2..need to update otherwise there will misinformation about the latest solar system.hehe @johnny ong, ya2..need to update otherwise there will misinformation about the latest solar system.hehe

]]> By: johnny ong http://izzatruslan.com/2008/09/14/pluto-loses-the-status-as-a-planet/comment-page-1/#comment-965 johnny ong Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:34:59 +0000 http://izzatruslan.com/?p=355#comment-965 so the whole earth's schools have to change their science subject to accommodate this deletion of pluto hehe johnny ongs last blog post..<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/mRgL/~3/391736116/controversial-arrests-in-malaysia.html" rel="nofollow">Controversial Arrests in Malaysia</a> so the whole earth’s schools have to change their science subject to accommodate this deletion of pluto hehe

johnny ongs last blog post..Controversial Arrests in Malaysia

]]>